Sexual Harassment—Or Unwanted Sexual Attention?

Adulthood requires that we know when unexpected sexual attention is harmless.

If you're interested in sexuality, consider the following scenario. It's a COMPOSITE of various situations that recur at conferences and other large gatherings. It's particularly important that people interested in progressive politics and gender relations work this out. Again, this is a COMPOSITE--the way therapists write about cases, changing some details and adding others.

A while back I attended the national conference of a large progressive organization. It was well-organized, stimulating, and fun. The people were mostly energetic, interesting, and friendly; it was a good mix of ages, sexual orientations, and divided almost 50/50 male-female.

I was eventually asked, as a sex therapist, what I thought about Sexual Harassment. Apparently a couple at last year’s conference had approached a particular woman in her mid-30s. Eventually “Mary & John” handed the woman their card—suggesting quite clearly that they were “open” to “adult activities.”

The woman didn’t want to share this kind of fun, which of course is perfectly fine. But she was somehow “offended,” which is unfortunate. In fact, the woman felt that this invitation constituted Sexual Harassment, and she complained. Dissatisfied and emotionally distressed, this previously loyal movement member blogged about it, urging her female readers to stay away from the organization. Now the word is out to younger progressive women—don’t go to this group’s conferences.

So the leadership of said organization is scurrying around, trying to figure out what to do. “About what?” I asked. Apparently,

* Some people want a policy on Sexual Harassment* Some people want a zero-tolerance policy on Sexual Harassment—one COMPLAINT and you’re out* Some people want to issue a statement about the organization’s policy on Sexual Harassment* Some people want to persuade this woman to attend next year’s conference* Some people want to persuade this woman to stop trashing the organization

For someone who didn’t want one kind of attention, this woman has certainly managed to get plenty of another kind of attention.

This woman—and the more intimidated members of the organization—need a history lesson. In the Bad Old Days, people—men—with institutional power (professors, bosses, doctors) used sex as a bargaining chip. “Sleep with me and you’ll get ahead,” some of them told the women who reported to them. “Refuse me and you won’t.” It was ugly. It was How Things Are Done. You can see it in the show Mad Men.

In the 1970s, women began to sue their employers under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Women demanded an end to the discrimination (“put out or get out”), and to the maintenance of hostile work or learning environments created by continuous sexual pressure. Nowadays, both kinds of pressure are considered unacceptable in most American institutions, and both employees and employers (and students and professors, etc.) have some sense of this.

But Sexual Harassment law was never designed to protect women from merely feeling uncomfortable. In a typical workday, men and women alike face many sources of discomfort: atheists face clerks wearing crosses; able-bodied people face colleagues in wheelchairs; Fundamentalist Muslims and Jews face professors dressed with arms and legs uncovered; the infertile face coworkers’ desks with photos of their kids, and parents are given time off for parenting events such as piano recitals.

No, the law is designed to simply create a level playing field of opportunity—not of emotional experience. It doesn’t require anyone to be a mind-reader, it doesn’t undo the normal uncertainties of social interaction, and it doesn’t require anyone’s social skills to be smooth as silk. Occasionally feeling offended is still considered part of the cost of being out in the world.

So what did that young woman experience? Not Sexual Harassment, but Unwanted Sexual Attention. And when the woman made it clear it was unwanted, the attention went away. That should have been the end of the story. But if the recipient of a friendly, non-pressuring, non-institutional (and OK, let's say clumsy or even stupid) sexual invitation isn’t grown up enough, she (or he) will feel assaulted. And with today’s heightened consciousness—and internet access—she will have the option of describing herself as victimized to a large number of people.

And yet why do we privilege unwanted attention that happens to involve sexuality? Again, we’re not talking about coercion or even pressure—we’re talking about attention, invitation, or suggestion that has no connection with real-world consequences like job evaluation. Adults are the recipients of unwanted attention every single day: stories from strangers on airplanes, awkward compliments from co-workers, grocery clerks sympathetically inquiring about the brace on your wrist or that cold medicine you’re buying, Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormon missionaries asking if they can talk with you for a just a moment about their Invisible Friend In The Sky.

Unwanted attention—whether sexual or non-sexual—is part of the cost of stepping outside your front door. With Jehovah’s Witnesses, you don’t even have to go out—you get the attention by just opening the door. When American society privileges our discomfort if the unwanted attention is sexual, that’s more about our cultural values than about any inherent hierarchy of discomfort.

The whole “Eek! An unwanted sexual invitation—gross! My day/week/year is ruined!” is a bit precious. The whole idea that women need to be protected from discomfort, or from men, or from sex, is a giant step backwards. Obviously, sexual violence and coercion are horrible and unacceptable realities in contemporary society. But if we need special rules to comfort or protect anyone reminded of this reality, modern life will come to a screeching halt. And it will be women who will suffer most from this “protection.” 1970s feminism was completely clear on the dangers of such traditional “protections,” and labored continuously—and successfully—to undo most of them.

The topic is particularly poignant when the people involved are progressive political activists. If we expect to go out and communicate effectively in a world that is often hostile to our ideas, we need to have the emotional skills to tolerate a wide range of responses. If we can’t even handle a friendly sexual invitation in a genuinely safe environment without losing our composure, how can we tolerate the rough-and-tumble of the world out there? Learning to say things like “that feels bad, please stop,” “I don’t like that you said that,” “You have obviously misread me completely,” and “I don’t think anyone would like what you just did” involves a fundamental skill that every grownup needs.

This has NOTHING to do with the number of women who are sexually coerced, trafficked, raped, murdered, or otherwise maltreated around the globe. This is not about porn films, prostitution, clitoridectomies, or forced child-rearing. Bringing these very real issues into this discussion just obscures what we're talking about: dealing with being uncomfortable, dealing with people who may be clueless--but harmless.

This is simply about the need for people to acquire and express a little bit of sexual intelligence. Gay men who are arrested and prosecuted for inviting undercover cops to have casual, anonymous sex don't deserve to suffer. Similarly, “John & Mary,” and every other non-dangerous person, deserves a simple reply when they issue an unwanted sexual (or non-sexual) invitation:

In one case, I pointed and laughed loudly. The man appeared embarrassed and left.

In the other case, the man was driving a car slowly beside me, while I walked through a parking lot. I pointed into the car and yelled, "Look, he's jacking off!" He drove away (quickly) and I chased his car, still yelling, "He was jacking off!"

So you were offended by the flashers? And you took actions to see that they were socially sanctioned by pointing out their offensive action to others.

To me this sounds like exactly what the woman who was given the "business" card did; she just did it in a blog post because the people who offended her had disappeared before she could react on the scene.

I completely disagree that what I did was the same. I addressed the situation myself, rather than asking some authority figure to handle it for me or make a new policy to prevent situations like this.

But you:
a) objected to the behaviour (which Dr Klein is unreasonable!)

and

b)"handled" it by making a public appeal for attention; in effect applying a social sanction against the person whose behaviour you were objecting to.

Looks the same to me.

And I don't think it's unreasonable; in fact I think it's quite sensible, for any formal public gathering having a policy about how they will handle things like harassment or "unwanted attention" if you prefer that term. The other option is ignoring it, which in effect condones it.

I completely disagree that what I did was the same. I addressed the situation myself, rather than asking some authority figure to handle it for me or make a new policy to prevent situations like this.

But you:
a) objected to the behaviour (which Dr Klein is unreasonable!)

and

b)"handled" it by making a public appeal for attention; in effect applying a social sanction against the person whose behaviour you were objecting to.

Looks the same to me.

And I don't think it's unreasonable; in fact I think it's quite sensible, for any formal public gathering having a policy about how they will handle things like harassment or "unwanted attention" if you prefer that term. The other option is ignoring it, which in effect condones it.

Oh, I see. I didn't realize you get to determine what is and is not adult behavior. Yelling at the top of your lungs that somebody is masturbating is clearly the adult thing to do. I can't believe people didn't see that before.

Please stop victim blaming and calling women who aren't you children because they don't react the way you would.

Nope, you appealed to the community/your peers by pointing out his action loudly in public. Which I'm fine with btw; flashers are fucking creepy. But don't try to rationalize that your actions was any different than the other example. Would you have pointed and laugh and exclaiming yourself loudly if no one else was around? Please.

Well, according to the good doctor, you were wrong to have been offended and if you didn't like that kind of attention, you shouldn't have tried to attract more attention to the issue. Why are you supporting a man who clearly doesn't support you?

i'm pretty sure the good doctor would draw a distinction between surprising someone with an unwanted view of your genitals and inviting someone to have a consensual encounter with your genitals. it kind of disturbs me that you don't see the difference

how can the "good" doctor say "you were wrong to be offended" a man was "jacking off" in front of other people how could this ever not be classed as offending in a public environment. In fact I do believe it breaks the law of "public indecency".

As for not drawing more attention to the situation does this so called "good" doctor believe it is right to TOLERATE SEXUAL HARASSMENT? because by saying you should not attract more attention is basically saying just tolerate sexual harassment as if it is something women should just put up with in everyday life. I wonder how a man would react to a less than average looking, and smelly women to act the same way?

Anne, why would you compare the sex crime of flashing
with a sexual invitation? Flashing is illegal. Big difference.
A rebuffed or rejected sexual invitation being repeated, you can complain about. Repeatedly making advances that are
clearly unwanted is harassment, which is also against
the law. A single invitation, without an explicit or implicit
threat of negative consequences for refusing, does not
constitute either a crime or a punishable moral failing. Men
are becoming confused and bitter by instances of benign
behavior being ridiculously demonized. If you say no, or no
thanks and that is the end of it, that should remain the end
of it. Very good article, by the way! We need some levity in
this discussion and real guidance, not more confusion and
paranoia.

i dunno about all that. i mean, sure, being hypersensitive doesn't command respect. but on the other hand, no one woman should ever be judged based on someone's perceptions about all women. isn't that the very definition of prejudice? even if every single women on earth were to behave like an adult, i have to wonder if prejudiced people are just too thick to notice. i mean, if the black community somehow eradicated every last welfare recipient and gangbanger from their midst, would the KKK just hang up their robes and go home?

No. This article is outrageous. My question to you, quite simply put is have you forgotten the word respect? I note that the article takes the tone that its about enlightenment and equality.. yet it's women who you expect to be the target. Or women that you single out as fragile, so presumably you expect them to be the victims..what a joke. I go to work to be respected for what I do. Not to be considered a dish on some narcissist's sexual smorgasbord. It has absolutely noting to do with being uncomfortable and everything to do with a lack of consent. Saying 'no' to unwanted attention is almost never effective. People who respect tend to act openly and respectfully towards others don't fish out unwanted sexual attention, they don't need to, they have respect and that usually does not mean going straight for sexually overt behaviour or suggestion in the workplace. it might involve openly and respectfully asking someone of they would like to go out sometime, and taking no for an answer. A far cry from cracking onto someone in their place of business. That's invasive. And even if there is no spoken threat that a person will lose their job if they don't comply, the threat is very much still there - be an object of my sexually explicit attention or lose your job - is always the threat if that behaviour is tolerated. Because the only way around it is to leave. If you think that people aren't getting their jollies from cracking onto others, think again. Ask someone out, get to know them outside of work let consent occur. Or go to a swingers party or the bloody hellfire club if you want to project sexual prowess on all and sundry, keep it out of the workplace it's revolting, sad and downright creepy. Unwanted attention at work is never, ever respectful. Why? Well the key word there is 'unwanted'. This article is nothing more than a justification of abuse. If it is ok to be 'uncomfortable' at work, then which form of 'discomfort' is more respectful, responsible and likely to lead to a healthier, happier life for all - the discomfort of having to put up with not being allowed to sexually objectify your colleagues and having to learn to see them in terms purely of their intelligence and merit at work? Who are the fragile ones here? The people who say we demand respect at work? Or the people who say we demand the right to sexually peruse our workmates? Who needs to take from others? Who, on the other hand is just saying 'sod off and let me do my job, if you have nothing better to do than be a sleazeball, perhaps you should be letting a more diligent person do yours?'

But do we really know the full story here? We do not know for sure whether or not the couple kept trying to persuade her and wouldn't go away. Its actually very creepy two adults were trying to get a third person to have sex with them as if they think most people would be okay with that which they aren't. Whenever I place a personal ad for one gender the majority of responses are always from couples, so it does get aggravating and maybe they just pushed her button one too many times. After all we weren't there and don't know what all was said and if they tried to touch her, get in her face, etc. So I can't say who was in the wrong.

How is getting propositioned during a professional conference a reasonable act? Why wouldn't this be part of the ground rules? I have a reasonable expectation of being treated in a professional manner while I am in a professional situation. Requesting a sexual encounter from a total stranger is not professional and is certainly not courteous. This may be the good doctors goals that sexuality should be incorporated into every aspect of ones work day, after all it is part of his entire career. But mine involves software and user applications and no where is sex even remotely part of it. I think he is coming from a very male perspective and is unwittingly endorsing a culture where women are expected to be the objects of desire and to endure any sexual attention that men pay to them. It smells of the patriarchy.

@ "But do we really know ..."
Sure we do . We know because apparently the woman blogged about it endlessly . I'd be highly surprised if she left out all the important little details such as "they just wouldn't stop even after I declined their offer." and so forth . Then , all we have to do is apply a little deductive logic .
This happened at a conference . The couple in question made an offer . The woman in question claimed to have been offended by the offere . So , are we to believe that they exchanged e-mail addresses , phone numbers , and mailing addresses after that ? That's pretty unlikely so it stands to reason that only one offer was extended and no other opportunities to repackage it came along .

I did read the woman's blog and didn't see her words posted anywhere. We still don't know for sure since neither of us were there. They very well may have kept trying to convince her to sleep with them. The mere fact that they were trying to bring a third person into their relationship shows that they aren't very good people.

The fact that their relationship is not defined by your standards of behavior does not make this couple not "very good people." There are many couples that have this kind of relationship and as long as it is agreeable to both parties and the person invited into it, it should be nobody else's business. If they attempted to coerce this woman into sexual activity or would not take no for an answer, then I might agree with you. However, the basis of their relationship does not automatically make them bad people.

The story related by Skepchick is that she "knew" these people from a couple of facebook messages passed back and forth. She "knew" them like I know the attendants at the local car wash. And tellingly, they vacated the premises immediately after passing the card. That, to me, sounds like stalking, not an invitation. That they have not come forward to tell their side of the story, since it's not like they're completely anonymous, confirms Skepchick's story. All of the prevaricating I'm reading here makes ya'll sound like a bunch sleazy losers.

Let me make this simple for you, this was a conference not a house party. Skepchick was there in a professional capacity. Call it a convention. At conventions it has been known for people to be obnoxiously drunk, engage with prostitutes, and generally make an ass of themselves. But, this happens in the privacy of outlying areas among people who generally agree to associate, not the convention floor.

If I discovered that one of my employees did something similar to a speaker walking off the podium at an affair where they were representing MY business, they would quickly be an ex-employee, without un-employment benefits, because any court or arbiter will agree with me that the action was unprofessional and detrimental to the business.

"The mere fact that they were trying to bring a third person into their relationship shows that they aren't very good people."

really? if a couple invites a 3rd party to bed, then you just automatically exclude them from the category "good people" in your mind? some people would be weirded out by such an invitation, while others would be like "omg this just like i've always fantasized". the only way to tell the difference is to inquire. is there some harm that is inherent in 3 somes that would be avoided by restricting sex to only 2 participants? i can't think of one but i'm all ears if you can

"The mere fact that they were trying to bring a third person into their relationship shows that they aren't very good people."

really? if a couple invites a 3rd party to bed, then you just automatically exclude them from the category "good people" in your mind? some people would be weirded out by such an invitation, while others would be like "omg this just like i've always fantasized". the only way to tell the difference is to inquire. is there some harm that is inherent in 3 somes that would be avoided by restricting sex to only 2 participants? i can't think of one but i'm all ears if you can

"I'd be highly surprised if she left out all the important little details such as "they just wouldn't stop even after I declined their offer." and so forth ."

Oh, you would? Since when does a critical thinker base hypotheses on an Argument from Incredulity? You might want to try actually reading the blog in question--you'll find the scenario you've just made up is a complete strawman.

Oh, you can't--because Klein didn't link to the blog in question. How convenient.

So all you're left with--after taking Klein's word for what happened--is speculation. How skeptical.

I agree that feminism is going backwards in it's attempts to protect women. However, I also think that this post is missing an important point. Sometimes what is merely "offensive" to one person is "intimidating" to another.

A good example is "Elevatorgate". A young man propositioned a well known female blogger inside of an elevator, she declined, and he was polite. Later she blogged that she found the whole thing creepy and suggested that men shouldn't be creepy when asking women for sex. Well, a big controversy broke out over her blog because men everywhere insisted that elevatordude (as he was called) did nothing wrong. Did he?

Many women find being cornered inside an elevator by a dude asking for sex intimidating.

It was 3 am. She had clearly stated she 1) wasn't interested in "being sexualized" and 2) wanted to go to bed.

He followed her into the elevator, and when the elevator had taken off and they were alone together, he asked her to his room. For "coffee."

She was uncomfortable.

She said, on her blog, "Guys, don't do that."

Subsequently, she was inundated with online abuse.

Oh, the horrors. Who's the fragile flower here, the woman who makes her feelings known, or the men who fall to pieces because a woman clearly describes behavior--behavior that dismisses her wishes and her feelings--that makes her uncomfortable?

Being alone with someone in a moving elevator most certainly qualifies as "being cornered". And the man--whom she did not know (he had heard her talk earlier)--followed her in there.

Did you really just compare a cashier in a grocery store dealing with a customer in public to someone alone in an elevator with a stranger (who's followed her) at 3am and claim that the latter was the same as the former and that the woman in question "MISPERCEIVED" the logistics of the situation? Because that would be 1) Incredibly stupid, and 2) Insultingly dismissive.

Did you really just compare a cashier in a grocery store dealing with a customer in public to someone alone in an elevator with a stranger (who's followed her) at 3am and claim that the latter was the same as the former and that the woman in question "MISPERCEIVED" the logistics of the situation?

Yes he did, because remember that all women are supposed to be sexually available to others, so a woman being paid to interact with strange men ringing up groceries is the same as a woman trying to go about her business in a social setting.

What they do share in common is neither woman's position indicates she desires to be chatted up sexually, or deserves to be given that type of attention just because someone else has deemed it inoffensive.

2. The exit from the cash register area is away from the customer. If a customer were to lean over and try to grope the cashier, the cashier would escape by moving away from the attacker.

The point that women were trying to make about Elevatorgate was that in a confined space, where a woman has no means of escape or has to go past (closer to) the person confronting her in order to escape, her perception of the threat in the situation goes up.

Anyone that would approach a complete stranger in an elevator demanding sex has some sort of social disorder or mental illness. That is not normal behavior for anyone aside from maybe drunks in bars, but in bars its somewhat understood that some others there may also be looking for casual sex. Stepping into an elevator is not an "ok" that demanding sex is an acceptable behavior. Had I have been that woman I would have feared he might try to rape. He deserved a hard, swift kick to the groin as legally speaking approaching a stranger in an elevator would fall under sexual assault in many states. If guys think the average woman is okay with that then they have a screw loose. Men today are such morons its no wonder women want nothing to do with them.

Time out on this one. Let me start by saying that I'm 100% on Rebecca's side regarding Elevatorgate and the guy was out of line, but he didn't "demand" sex. He said that he would like her to return to his room for "coffee," which implies sex, and even Rebecca was very clear that he was not aggressive and demanding. The point of the original post was simply that it's inappropriate to proposition women in an enclosed space where there is no possibility of escape.

Again, I think Elevatordude was a creep, but let's restrict reactions to facts. He did a really inappropriate thing, but it wasn't a demand for sex. It was proposing sex in an unsafe place (for Rebecca) and after just seeing her speech about how she does not like to be sexualized, thereby ignoring her wishes to not be seen as a sex object. These are still awful things and Rebecca was absolutely right to react the way she did.

Elevator Dude merely asked her if she wanted to continue the conversation - this was at another conference - over COFFEE. There was no "propositioning for sex". Everything was in her poor deluded feminism ravaged mind.

There's now a term for this: nuclear rejection.

One of the bloggers around here some months back provided a great example. She went to a street fair or farmer's market and suffered the horrible misfortune of having some guy try and talk to her and befriend her, the subject of the blogpost.

I was thinking about that one the other day when the local TV news did a piece on "how difficult it is for singles (i.e., women) to meet someone"; the female reporter and female "relationship expert" had come up with a list. Of course, going to the farmer's market or street fair was on the list.

The Designated Initiator role women proclaim is men's job is nothing but a big set-up for the faux sexual harassment industrial complex. Every woman should now be considered a walking IED and should be given at least a 100 yard safe zone buffer to avoid potentially serious injury.

I suggest you reread the comments here. Lying? Strawman? More like red herring that "Elevator dude" was brought up to begin with.

"Guys don't do that" is in itself innocuous, but the escalation (on both sides) is ridiculous.

Honestly, the whole idea that men should crumble every time a woman gets uncomfortable is asinine. It's attempting to push the pendulum beyond "equality," which is unsurprising dealing with angry, radicalized, gender feminists.

Is it so difficult to not be a douchebag? Is it really such a great challenge to give a damn about how another person feels about something? That is really "crumbling," to you? Considering whether what you're doing negatively affects somebody else?

What kind of loser asks a stranger in an elevator for sex? Really that is a pretty pitiful human being to do that. Most normal people are able to get sex via dating or else through the usual loser's media Craigslist where all the losers & mentally ill congregate. I would be embarrassed to be that young man. I mean what a dweeb! I mean he's saying I'm such a loser the only way I can get sex is beg girls in elevators because no woman would dare ever want me. Why not just get a prostitute?

Thanks for the wonderful and spot on blog. The responses prove the point.. Some people are incredibly judgmental and critical and seek to impose their repression, fears and neuroticism on others. There is nothing "creepy" about a 3 some among consenting conscious adults, and there's nothing wrong with a young man approaching a woman in an elevator....Many women would be flattered and say no thanks..
You know what's creepy: the judgmental nature of the posts here. Grow up and realize you are not in chaRGE AND CAN'T TELL EEVRYONE ELSE WHAT TO DO AND REALIZE YOU ARE THE REPRESSED ONE!